User talk:Mglovesfun/Archives/15

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search


i'm sorry i didn't realize from the context i thought it implied the page was empty and needed some filler, was just trying to help with some more practical phrases more likely to come up, you feel me?Acdcrocks 10:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Those could perhaps be under ===See also=== as wikified links. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Record of fact[edit]

Record of fact cannot be deleted. Please see here. Afex 21:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

What's 'record of fact'? Anyway this hasn't been deleted, if it had been deleted you couldn't link to it. It's been reverted. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Why not if you like, but don't block me and try to close my mouth first. Sundy 12:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Our problem is trying to get you to talk, not the other way around. What I'd like (of course I can't speak for other users) is for you to defend your point of view, but to accept the will of the majority, even if you disagree with it. I'd consider that the best virtue of any Wiktionary editor, on a par with being good with wikisyntax and good with at least one language. The second two on my list are easier to learn over time. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
But I have been blocked last time without reason. Sundy 12:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
No, you just keep getting blocked for the same reasons. A lifetime block is just that, you got blocked for creating thousands of toneless pinyin entries and refusing to cooperate with other editors. I do appreciate that you've changed your ways, but it would be nice to be able to communicate with you and reason with you instead of having to set up a vote to ban explicit practices, often ones only you practise. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Toneless Pinyin entries were made by rule at that time, even user:A-cai had made a lot of toneless Pinyin entries before. Anyway, we should see what we are doing now especially to see is it good for users. Please see here which has been block last time. The user contributions showed that it is beneficial to users, please see evidences here (mistake has been corrected), and here (Etymology has been added). Sundy 13:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll conceed that point. My point is really that it would be nice to be able to communicate with one another and reach and agreement rather than going for votes even when an agreement can be made without one, but can't be enforced. There have also been a lot of questions about what languages you speak. Clearly you're not a native English speaker, but your Mandarin is also imperfect. Is Mandarin your first language? Is it another language? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I think you have been misled last time by somebody said that I have made some tone mark mistakes. The fact is that Mandarin tone marks are hard to input and easy to have typing error, and hard to find out the mistakes because tone marks are very small. Mandarin is my first language and I was a Mandarin teacher, so I know well that Pinyin entries are necessary especially for learners. Sundy 13:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
@123abc. Seems like you yourself never left the learning mode, never moved from pinyin to Chinese characters. Tooironic and myself are not native speakers but we don't have trouble creating correct Mandarin entries. Did you try to ask? You were given instructions, help was offered but you stuck with toneless pinyin for a very long time and you're not fixing this, someone else has to. You are wondering why you're getting blocked? Well, you changed your habits from the past just a little bit, you know that pinyin entries not matching the criteria will be deleted, one of your numerous accounts and IP addresses will be blocked again. If you were cooperative and tried to listen to other Mandarin editors, we wouldn't need to set up votes in the first place. There are a few people who blocked you several times. Don't you get it? You are not welcome here! You created so much work and trouble for others. It's just better if you leave. You don't want to communicate with other editors and if things don't go your way, you just start an edit war. You prefer to use the backdoor. Bad! If an issue is controversial, it should be discussed and agreed upon, not forced upon other like your shocking mixed language examples, especially "Hyde公园" and "London" in Mandarin. Did you teach Chinglish? Pinyin (with correct tone marks!) is useful but it's only useful if it means your hanzi reading skills get better, it's not meant as a replacement. As far as I'm concerned, you're a banned editor but if you take part in discussions or edits, have a decency to use just one account, you can't hide by editing anonymously; your edits are immediately recognisable. --Anatoli 22:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect, I expect better from a teacher. Communication is vital for a teacher and if I were employing a teacher who had a tantrum every time someone disagreed with them, I wouldn't employ them for very long. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
His recent new accounts have been blocked by people. I'm sure he'll surface gaian soon talking about "don't use double standard". --Anatoli 06:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


Dick blocked me again but is ignoring the beer parlour decision, what should i do? (ACDC rocks) 22:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

  • (For the record) I ultimately gave Troy an indefinite block because he started weirdly threatening me with some restraining order shit. (Copy-pasting this to a few others.) — [Ric Laurent] — 23:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Dick Laurent, can we negotiate on this? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I might forgive him if he sits on my penis. But come on dude, you know I'm an unreasonable maniac :P Anyway, my basic point is, do we want someone around who resorts to legal threats so easily? — [Ric Laurent] — 12:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
If you are fat and ugly and 80 years old, please don't ever tell me cause that sit on your dick comment would make me puke.Catch22 09:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, my basic point would be do we want someone around who's really bad at editing Wiktionary? I had a voluntary job once and I was good at it, but if I'd have been shit they'd have let me go even though I wasn't getting paid. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I mean, he's not the worst we've ever had but he's really not very good and is resistant to doing better. His emergency medicine stuff is mostly valid, but the majority of his other stuff is silly and juvenile or totally invalid SOP.... I want to want him here, I think we could always use more homos, but... him in particular, I find myself unable to desire his presence among us. You know? — [Ric Laurent] — 13:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
So you want me blocked because you don't think I am very good? Isn't this a wiki? And how have I not been doing better? I also hear you kinda sucked when you started around here yourself. whore out and pimped out may sound juvenile to you but its all words in all languages and I don't focus on immaturity, I focus on firefighter-emt stuff and anything obscure that I come across that I think others could find useful and that is not included. I think a foreigner would benefit from being able to find for free a slang term for smegma as much as someone reading up on the civil rights movement in the united states might want to find out what exactly a checkerboard chick was, I didn't I had to ask a ton of people before I go a decent answer so I thought I should add it. I also thought for such a controversial word such as nigger an audio recording would be super useful to someone unfamiliar with it and it should be complete that way, I also think really hard to pronounce chemistry terms could use those the most so I added a bunch. If you think it is invalid SOP then take it to a verification or deletion debate and if it is it will be mercilessly axed but you should take a look at the loads of similar entries that I have not entered that are here without any etymology, pronunciation, citations, or much substance at all. On the occasions I have readded deleted terms its because the deleted version was crappy and I improved it dramatically, they have little chance of being included unless someone takes them as a challenge to source and prove. PS if you were datable or fuckable and decent in bed I wouldn't sit on it to get you to unblock me cause we'd never get off that bed baby.Catch22 09:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Fine, disagree with him, you don't have to insult him with it. And FWIW I think editors should have a minimum standard here, the only difference between a vandal and a very poor editor is that the vandal is intending to cause harm. But the net effect is the same, WT:BLOCK backs this up (and I didn't even support that version of WT:BLOCK). Mglovesfun (talk) 09:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
That is fine but I do meet and surpass that minimum standard and only want to improve and continue editing while not contacting Ric in any avoidable way. In fact the entire edit history of ACDC rocks I never contacted him once. I was able to resolve all issues simply in a nondescript and uneventful manner and will continue to do so. I was quoting the part that other editors said he sucked when he first started too and it was not meant as an insult I was trying to relate to the guy. I find it hard to believe that would insult him when he makes comments about how troublesome people that suck dick like me are.[1]. 21:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/2011-10/Categories of names 3[edit]

Because you voted in Wiktionary:Votes/2011-07/Categories of names, I'm informing you of this new vote.​—msh210 (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

template talk:en-adj[edit]

An update at the bottom might interest you.​—msh210 (talk) 05:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


thx for you Catalan entries. They look pretty good. My Catalan is coming on very nicely, so I'll be able to help out. Of course, mistakes will be made, but, after all, this is a wiki --Rockpilot 21:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I certainly don't guarantee no mistakes. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

bot placing extra |[edit]

[2][3] There's a double " | " placed on several edits around this date, it's breaking the transcriptions. Cheers, Cold Season 03:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Although, just noticed that some aren't filled with all the three transcriptions (Revised, McCune–Reischauer, Yale), like [4], which still breaks it either way... Cold Season 03:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, it's because the text size autowikibrowser uses is so small, I often can't tell if there's one bar or two bars. Should be fixable though. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Fixed, I think. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorting French (again)[edit]

I think I haven't anything else to fix but verbs. I have also left a note to some editors of French asking them to include the sort key in their new entries, if possible. So it's time to make a decision about the conjugation templates. If you think it has not been discussed sufficiently, could you at least replace cat with sort in {{fr-conj-table}} and {{fr-conj}}? --flyax 10:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's uncontroversial enough that I can just go on and do it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Am redoing my sweep to check that all French verbs use {{fr-verb}}. Should only take a few minutes. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry about getting every single entry; a bit like Special:UncategorizedPages, a day or less after you fix the last remaining entry, another one pops up. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. However I don't like leaving too many problems behind me. I wrote a simple tool (here) that can trace missing sort keys or other problems in a given French category. I suppose that I can run it once in a while and if there are just a few problems fix them manually or else run the bot again for the whole category. --flyax 12:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Finnish anon block[edit]

I strongly disagree with you blocking this guy. Was there some deleted edits I missed? RFDing those things was perhaps misguided, but no way blockworthy. --Rockpilot 22:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Well he wasn't stopping though. WT:BLOCK says you should attempt to communicate, and I did, but he kept on making the edits, so I blocked him. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Need Template access/edit[edit]

You were the last person to lock both Templates for figurative and figuratively. To make matters worse, figurative redirects to figuratively, which makes absolutely no sense in the context of a dictionary. Definitions need a figurative label as a formal description that the meaning is derived from the literal meaning but does not correspond to it exactly. In this context, "figuratively" makes no sense whatsoever. In fact, I can't think of any instance where (figuratively) would be a sensible label in a dictionary. Please, either unlock the templates or edit them yourself. The current situation is grotesque. Alex.deWitte 04:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. And even if I agree, it's not solely my decision to make, I'd recommend WT:BP. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
All I have to say is that dictionaries that I am familiar with usually use abbreviated tags, such as "fig." or "figur.", but the underlying unpacking is always "figurative". This is certainly the case with Oxford dictionaries and American Heritage. I am not aware of any that use "figuratively"--if you do, I would appreciate a pointer. In any case, I'll file it in a proper place. Alex.deWitte 21:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
You've sort of made my point for me, AHD and Oxford don't use figurative, they use fig., which is neither figurative or figuratively. If "figuratively" makes no sense whatsoever, may I suggests it's your inability to understand the English language rather than the inappropriateness of the label. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think you have a point. Those dictionaries use the "fig." tag, but the list of abbreviations very clearly deciphers it as "figurative"--no ambiguity whatsoever. There are few places in a dictionary where the "figuratively" tag would be used, if any. On the other hand, "figurative" occurs all the time. when describing alternative definitions. Conversely, in etymology, it may be necessary to say "literally" in order to describe a literal meaning of an expression--but only in situations where the word, as defined in the dictionary, does not follow the literal interpretation. For example, an etymological note on "fleur de lis" might start out, "Lit. flower of ...". In this context, "literally" is appropriate. But that's not a tag one would find in a lemma, where "fig." belongs. || Love your backhanded insult, though--makes me wonder what kind of a poseur hides behind the handle. I have no intention to question your ability to understand English--but I do suggest you take more care next time when reading. Reading comprehension is a necessary part of understanding a language--or, at least, in understanding something being written in a language. You might also benefit from having a little more respect for those who disagree with you. But, ultimately, that's your choice. Alex.deWitte 07:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Fancy being a judge?[edit]

Hi Gloves. So, I didn't allow you into the Bastards Club. Nevermind, you can become a preliminary member, and be one of the judges in the upcoming story-writing competition. Are you interested? You may of course enter as well as judge. I'd love to see you write a story in Old French, for example. It would be totally sweet. --Rockpilot 09:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Gotta be the first time on here someone's accused me of not being a bastard. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Please state you preference at WT:FUN, then you can join the club, lol. --Rockpilot 10:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

fuck with one[edit]

I believe that word deserves its own separate entry and a distinct word separate from "fuck" as a verb, as shown by the quotes I added, would you bring it back and take it to V or D instead?Acdcrocks 09:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No, though we may need to add a definition to fuck. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Well would you do it anyways, it was rather unwarranted and I would like the opinion of others considered, especially since it was correctly formatted and you allowed it to be up for no longer than a few minutes after creation disallowing anybody's else's input and also destroying any chances I could have of transferring over any quotes to a relevant article.Acdcrocks 09:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
This is probably at fuck with. —Stephen (Talk) 09:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
There we go! Mglovesfun (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
There's an argument that fuck with, mess with et al. would be easier to find at fuck and mess, using {{context|used with "with"}}. Thoughts? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

chupón / rampollo[edit]

Hi. Thanks for the maintenance you did in chupón. This edition, supresses info about very closely related terms (chupón and rampollo, almost synonyms). As I am not very familiar with editing here, I probably did not place the info in the better possible way or place but I still think it is a very relevant kind of information in a dictionary like this. If no format has been agreed here for such cases, I think it would be a good idea to discuss one. Meanwhile, I would at least leave that info either hidden as a comment in the article itself or mention it in the talk page. Regards. -- 13:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It was more the way it was formatted, it said see rampollo which to me means 'see rampollo for related terms'. If they're synonymous add it back, or if as you say, nearly synonymous, add a comment using {{qualifier|comment goes here}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

now that I am back[edit]

Perhaps you can suggest a way for me to add an entry on 'orei' without incurring your wrath. Tibetologist 13:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

If you know the kanji, yes, something like

{{ja-noun|r|hira=(whatever it is)}}

# {{ja-def|whatever it is}}
The formatting is less important than having the correct kanji, as if a contributor doesn't speak Japanese, they can't add the kanji, but they can still format what is already there. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

User rights[edit]

Thank you ;)--Frigotoni ...i'm here; 16:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


happy halloween!Acdcrocks 23:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

flood flag[edit]

I don't know whether you watchlist the page, so am pointing out that you might be interested in [[Wiktionary talk:Requests for flood flag#procedure]].​—msh210 (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

prairie dogging[edit]

thanks for trimming prairie dogging, I had had a hard time making a concise definition for such as graphic topic, I did add on a bit more as prairie dogging isn't just an involuntary bowel movement, it's when one begins to happen and you try to stop it or delay it by tightening your anus. I hope I was able to properly express that in my edit. Also I found 3 great new quotations that really show the richly idiomatic usage here. I couldn't find the years for one of them so I put in 2011, is that ok? Or is blank better? Oh yeah and I hope you had a great day yesterday if Halloween is your thing.Acdcrocks 10:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Better blank than wrong IMO. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No Internet[edit]

I have no Internet access at home until it gets fixed (God only knows when). I will log on at the local library from time to time, but I make no guarantee of doing it every day, or every two days, etc. For anything urgent do not ask me at all. Otherwise, please be patient. Oh and please help SemperBlotto out by patrolling the recent changes. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Godspeed your return to us, brosef. — [Ric Laurent] — 11:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Fixed it, um, somehow. I'll be damned if I understand. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Say word lol — [Ric Laurent] — 16:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

About your e-mail[edit]

Hello Martin,

I received a strange mail from you yesterday at 11PM, without subject and containing only a link without description. I just would like to be sure this mail really comes from you, which I really doubt. Thanks. -- Quentinv57 10:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't; delete it immediately, do not click on any links. Seems my account has been hacked in some way. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I got an e-mail from a Canadian online pharmaceutical retailer. They seem to be the ones that hikacked e-mail addresses from your PC. DCDuring TALK 13:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Wanted entries[edit]

Maybe I got something wrong, but shouldn't new Wanted entries be added to the end of the queue? Longtrend 13:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I've been reorganizing it a bit to avoid having all the Hanzi or Arabic or whatever entries in a row. They were in an arbitrary order to start with, so I don't see any harm in changing the order. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
It just seems a bit unfair to put one's own wanted entry to a place near the front of the queue. I don't think it would be accepted if a new user did that to promote their entry. Longtrend 13:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
At least EP didn't accept it when I did it. -- Liliana 13:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Am really just trying to break up all the hanzi entries, they still need breaking up but I can't be bothered doing it. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Why bother about breaking them up in the first place? AFAIK, nobody just chooses the first entries in the queue for putting in the active list, they all seem to choose a diversity of entries from different languages/in different scripts. Longtrend 14:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, that's exactly what people do. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


Fancy defining afférir for me, Gloves? --Rockpilot 19:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Never heard of it to be honest. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

suck up to[edit]

If we have lick someone's ass and sucking up is also a term like it, what is the proper naming convention, "sucking up to one" "sucking up" or to "suck up"(verb) ?Lucifer 23:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I think just suck up, although I think this sense is always used with "to". Problem is, creating suck up to would split suck up into to entries, people who look up one entry may not also look up the other. --Mglovesfun (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
We use the lemma form which is usually the infinitive, so suck up for your example. It's not always used with to, but that kind of information is what "Usage notes" sections are for, I suppose. Equinox 23:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I can't come up with an example of it not being used with "to". --Mglovesfun (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Just "stop sucking up!" or "why are you always sucking up?". The target doesn't have to be mentioned. Equinox 23:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


Hello. You have reverted redirecting this page to жовтогарячий. I would ask you redirect it again, or even delete, because this is not a correct spelling. As a general rule, all combined names of colors in Ukrainian are hyphenated, but this is one, and perhaps the only, exclusion, about which I had forgotten. Besides, the French translation of the word is incorrect either. --Alexdubr 11:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Should be a delete in that case, if it redirects, people won't know why it redirects, so I'll delete it with a summary. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you --Alexdubr 13:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hasty maybe?[edit]

[5] Going to ignore the POS marker? — [Ric Laurent] — 12:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

spaces near pipes[edit]

Re diff, you might reconsider. I think this will adversely affect [[Catgeory:Foo| ]] (at least: possibly other things, too).​—msh210 (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm yeah, I initially couldn't think of any bugs, now you've come up with a sort of bug. Having said that, wasn't there a vote on the matter of sorting all entries alphabetically in topical categories? What was the result? --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
There's also the possibility of just adding back a space manually, a bit like changing {{n}} to n when it refers to a mathematical term. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

re: Welcome![edit]

Hello Mglovesfun, and Thank you :)

I am currently launching a script to import translations made by myself from mg.wikt. So if you see it's creating pages by error, feel free to delete them. Regards. --Jagwar 22:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

SOP discussion[edit]

If you want to transclude part of the TV show discussion at the Criteria for inclusion discussion I started, you're more than welcome to Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 16:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Supposed rm of comments[edit]

When you undid my edit, claiming I removed your comments, you removed my comments. Oh, and please stop assuming bad faith Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 17:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The comment physically wasn't there to read it. Just check the diffs. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
No need to assume anything, just read diff. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I looked at it again. What I see is one of my comments gone, and one of your comments added. I also see that the previous edit wasn't made by me Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 17:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Alright, that was the diff where I undid your edit, you removed my edit here. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Presumably (s)he encountered an edit conflict, and failed to resolve it properly. —RuakhTALK 17:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
(ec)Oh, that must've been an (ec). Sorry about that. I had no intention of removing your comment Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 17:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I assumed it was accident, I've been known to remove an entire line of text by accident. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


Hullo. Could I creäte this: [[Category:French terms spelled with Œ]]? I do not know if the lettre œ is inusual enough in français to warraunt a category. --Pilcrow 21:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Pretty rare, and in my opinion, it's becoming more and more fashionable to avoid it. I think spellings like sœur could well be considered 'dated' or 'obsolete' by 2100. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
¶ I interpreted your response as affirmation, so I creäted the category and I am categorizing now. I hope ye do not mind. --Pilcrow 21:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Chaucer and Middle English[edit]

I suppose this really deserves more of a response than "I don't know", even though I have little to say about it. As you're probably aware, I've been importing the dated entries from Webster 1913 and flagging them with {{webster}}. Most of them are valid, and I'm skipping terms that seem absolutely silly, and in the few cases where a bad one gets through, I suppose an RFV or RFD will eventually get it. W1913 included Chaucerian words (and those of other Middle English authors), and actually W1913 has a strong bias towards "known classics", by which I mean that if (say) Sir Thomas Browne invented a word, and used it, and nobody ever used it before or since, Webster still included it because it was in a famous book. That's rather like our {{context|nonce|lang=und}} tag. So, to your point: I don't actually know the rules (or accepted scholarship) regarding what is modern English and what is Old (or Middle) English, though I can see how a lot of Chaucerian terms fall outside anything anyone would use today (such as wikke, which doesn't look like English as we know it at all). If you want to move them to Middle English, I'm fine with that, but you have to realise that I'm doing basically a supervised mass import of an entire dictionary, which wasn't so discerning about different eras of English, and I'm not particularly familiar with Middle English (I've read Chaucer and others, but I'm not a qualified linguist, and certainly not a historian), and I'm basically going to import what I see, as long as it's Google-Books-attestable. I am happy for you to move entries to another "language" and I imagine it makes sense, but there are not many of us and I'm working on the "something is better than nothing" basis. Equinox 22:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, if I may chime in here? I think the most common definition for the beginning of modern English is the 16th century, in particular the writings of Shakespeare. Linguistically the clearest dividing line is the Great Vowel Shift, which is thought to have started shortly before Shakespeare's writing. But in a more practical sense, it's probably not very useful to treat Shakespeare's language the same as the language spoken today. That's why modern English is often split into Early Modern English (until the middle or end of the 17th century) and Modern English proper. But our definition of English includes both and that doesn't always make sense. From a historical perspective, any 'stage' of a language as we know it lasts a few hundred years. Literary Old English lasted from the 8th to the 11th century, Middle English from the 12th to the 15th, Modern English from the 16th to the 21st. Seen in that light, English is long 'overdue' for a new period in its history... —CodeCat 22:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Webster includes a lot of Chaucerian words that a modern dictionary would not. (I know I'm always going on about Chambers, and the modern Chambers sets its initial bar at Shakespeare, so anything older probably won't be included.) As I said above, I'm happy for you to move them to Middle English if that is appropriate. Equinox 23:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I think it's best to move them to Middle English per the current edition of WT:About English. However it's a low enough priority that I'm not going to do it. Also the fact Chaucer used them doesn't mean they aren't also Modern English. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


Hello Mglovesfun. I just would like to notify you here I've sent you a mail (as I'm not sure you read this daily). Could you please also, when you will have some time, take a look at my contributions ? I would like to be sure of what I do. Thanks -- Quentinv57 09:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd say you should use {{abbreviation of|trois|lang=fr}} instead of just trois, as trois is not the English word for 3. Regarding your email, I got it but I have nothing to add. What does this 'complaint' against the user achieve? He/she is already banned. Just ignore him and continue indef blocking at every possible occasion. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

start button[edit]

start button, I made some edits which you may be interested in seeing.Lucifer 11:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello/Noroc ![edit]

Baican.BAICAN XXX 14:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

One other enquiry.[edit]

I left another enquiry here for you at vniust. Ye can leave the aunswer here if ye desire so. --Pilcrow 10:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

1990 template[edit]

hi Gloves. Isn't there a template like Template:1990 where I can lazily link to the 1990 French orthographic changes. To use on huitre...--Simplus2 10:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

{{fr-note reformed spelling}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
thanks buddy--Simplus2 11:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Nouns and proper nouns[edit]

Hi. I just started a discussion on BP and would really appreciate your input. Thanks. – Krun 18:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Et bienvenue à toi[edit]

I'm not sure I really need a Welcome. I'm unofficially a Master Editor II; I become official in February once I reach the 8-year threshold. Shortly thereafter, I hope to have my driving privileges restored; they were suspended in the wake of my brain haemorrhage in March.
Cheers, Varlaam 17:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Editors who are familiar with Wikipedia generally make lots of mistakes here, assuming that Wikipedia policies will be valid here, which they aren't. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


Hi Mglovesfun! I left you a reply on my talk page. I went ahead and added the etymology for branc. I hope that is alright. Leasnam 14:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks! In future, if you want to, use {{recons|brant|lang=frk|sc=Latn}}, which links to Appendix:Frankish/brant, it's the closest equivalent to the proto appendices we have, but the template is by no means 'imposed'. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Wonderful. Thank you! Leasnam 14:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
It would be cognate to brandir, I suppose. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The two words are related, yes. Leasnam 14:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Encluding français translations.[edit]

¶ May I still enclude français translations? If so, when is it acceptable? Should I provide a reference if anybody is suspicious? --Pilcrow 13:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I dunno what to say apart from 'yes'. Nobody's complaining about your edits because they're good edits. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
¶ What are ye talking about? Have ye seen this topick & this one? --Pilcrow 13:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Well ægalement wasn't wrong, you can check the original scan and it's ægalement! Mglovesfun (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for confirmation.[edit]

Could ye please confirm the meaning of « læsion » in these citations provided? --Pilcrow 19:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Last two definitely, first one I'm not so sure! I guess that what is calls « yuresse » is actually ivresse (yvresse). Mglovesfun (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I adjected an extra citation of the year 1779 CE. Is it now satisfactory à Votre Grâce ? I would like permission to adject a French section to læsion. --Pilcrow 19:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Well it's definitely a word. In future I'd say cite it first, then add it, and assume nobody will object, they usually don't. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Also, I added pourquoy which was in one of the citations. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
The Spanish entries execucion and execución also seem to be valid. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


Hello Mglovesfun, glad to know that you are so well informed in linguistics as that particular subject is of interest to me. According to me in the etymology of words such as "covivial" we ought to use the non-inflected form of the verb in Latin such as "vivere" which is the infinitive form, shouldn't we? "Vivo" on the other hand is an inflected form.

I just answered this on your talk page. ta, Mglovesfun (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, will take care to follow this policy in future edits. Do tell me though is present indicative the root (uninflected) word or the infinitive?

First-person singular present active indicative. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Latin/Roman[edit]

I noticed that, but thanx for the warning. I was moved by the fact that WT:EDIT when adding translations renders Latin instead of Roman for sh terms. БТЊ, Wikipedia's article is also titled Latin script. --BiblbroX дискашн 20:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Re:Pronunciation of foreign words[edit]

Thanks for your opinion at the discussion, in case you are not watching the discussion I'm re-posting this here. "You are quite right, using 'should' made it subjective, would you please share your unbiased or objective opinion then, would appreciate it if you do so". Rockin291 05:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I already have. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm Rick James bitch[edit]

Seems to have been deleted without any consensus, it looks like it is a byword and therefore a proverb to me.Lucifer 22:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't find the RFD debate, where is it? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Talk:I'm Rick James bitch. Equinox 22:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Everything seems to be in order here. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

large bill[edit]

On the phrase large bill, you referred to the definition "A bill larger in size than the size of bill made today" as "just nonsense" Actually, that definition isn't "just nonsense"...bills made 100-150 years ago were larger in size than bills today. Collectors refer to those early bills as "large bills". So I put it back Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 01:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, no argument from me. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


Hi Martin. I might have to nominate you for bureaucrat one day. --Simplus2 18:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone else asked me this once. I merely said there are a few admins who deserve to be nominated before me. Msh210 and Ruakh come to mind, Equinox too. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


Your bot replaces "infl" with "head". Does that concern anything I should know about?Dakhart 00:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Just that infl has been moved to head. In a word 'no' it doesn't really affect anything. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


A mess? You're kidding me. The page is a bloody mess and I was cleaning it up. Scooteristi 08:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You pretty much destroyed all the formatting among the definitions, and also wrote in colloquial English, so I had no choice other than to revert. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Destroyed the formatting? Huh? That page is missing definitions. That page has one incorrect definition. It is currently a jumbled up mess. I organized it and you keep vandalizing it by returning it to something rather horrific. If you have a problem with the way something is stated in my corrections then either fix the specific issue or tell me what your specific issues are. The wholesale reversion you keep doing is vandalism. Scooteristi 12:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
When you'd finished with the page, there were zero definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
You seem to think that 'zoology' is a definition of scooter. Are you saying that scooter and zoology are synonyms? Ditto 'transport', are transport and scooter synonyms? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Location of Romanization[edit]

Hi, is this the usual placement of romanizations? I thought they usually came on the headword line (not feasible in the case of a whole template and therefore coming immediately after it in this case), and all the other Burmese entries have their romanization template under the headword. On the other hand, doing it your way obviates the necessity of repeating the romanization template for every part of speech when two or more have the same spelling and pronunciation (e.g. နဲ့). —Angr 14:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I may be misremembering, but I though the Romanization template goes under the pronunciation header, not the noun (etc.) header. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, neither WT:ELE nor WT:TRANSLIT says anything about where the transliteration should go, but I've just hit "Random entry (by language)" several times for several different non–Roman alphabet languages, and they all put the transliteration in the headword line. The only difference between those examples and Burmese is that in the other languages, usually only a single transliteration is given, where for Burmese we have a whole box containing four transliterations. Anyway, I'm going to undo your edit for now so that စာအုပ် is consistent with other Burmese entries, but it may be worth discussing at the Beer Parlor. —Angr 07:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it might be Korean that puts its transliteration box under pronunciation (not Burmese) so no arguments from me. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)